Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

I started to park on private land owned by Parking and Property Management Ltd.
I was given a PCN on my windscreen. I ignored this and continued to use the parking. I have since received 8 other PCN's dated between October and December.

I received some post through in different stages as the registered keeper claiming that this charge had not been paid and needed to be sorted. I ignored these and threw them in the bin. I then received a solicitors letter from Gladstones telling myself there was 1 PCN outstanding and they were now dealing with the matter.

I received a letter to claim letter afterwards which I then further ignored and threw away.

I have now received a claim form for this one outstanding PCN asking for fees now totalling to £220.00.

I have read through all of the threads. I have not kept any of the paperwork and realise this is a mistake.

Thank you for that. I've been researching as you suggested and have been considering the points for my defence. I am off work tomorrow so will be drafting and posting my defence then.

If anyone can provide any talking points to the posts I have made, in particular the NTK and whether this is compliant with POFA I would be grateful. I've looked through it and there are parts where I think has omission but another pair of eyes would be great.

My defence will discuss the signs and how these are not compliment with code of practice and too high with small font as shown in the photo attached.

If someone could also please look over the close up of the sign and suggest whether they think this enforces a contract between us.

NTK is not compliant in wording, pick out the several omissions (be pedantic). I see omissions from para 8:

8 (1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must!!!8212;
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);
...
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper!!!8212;
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver

and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given!!!8212;

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
...

Thanks Coupon.
I thought these also and didn't know if their wording was compliant or not.
The NTK is so vague and misleading so will use these to my advantage.
If anyone else spots anything let me know.
Drafting defence today for proof reading.

Please see draft defence below.
Any advuce or amendments would be welcomed

1.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.

2.
The Defendant admits he is the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the parking charge being issued however denies any knowing of who was driving the vehicle.

3.
If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that some of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.

4.a)
The Claimant will argue a notice to keeper was issued to the registered keeper complying with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 8(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given. The Defendant will argue that this is only one of many conditions that the Notice to Keeper must oblige to.

4.b)
Where a notice had been provided it failed to meet the other required demands as specified in the Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. By having these omissions the Notice to Keeper is not compliant and therefore no claim can be brought forward to the registered keeper.

It failed to comply with:

"8
(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

5).
It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Despite requesting, under the Ministry of Justice Part 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS Rule 31:14, for all documents relating to this case including copies of signs in place at the time of the parking charge notice as well as evidence of any contractual agreemets in place with the landowner the Claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Parking and Property Management. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

6).
If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this
Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

7).
The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision is Parking Eye v. Beavis is applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose conditions in a <non retail> where there is no turnover of visitors and the defendant’s vehicle was not in pay-and-display car parking.

At no point did the driver enter into any contract with the third party.

8) The Claimant did not display clear signs within the site that were capable of being read and/or form a contract.
a) There is no prominent signage at the entrance of the parking area.
b) Signage is not lit.
c) Other signs are raised high up with small text which is difficult to read.
d) The amount of charge is non prominent in the wording on the signage.

The signage did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver and the notices do not provide the 'adequate notice' of the parking charge which is mandatory under Schedule 4 of the POFA.

8).
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore despite the Defendant requesting for this information, under the Ministry of Justice Part 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS Rule 31:14, no information has yet been provided to establish a defence even though the Claimant had 7 days from the letter sent on Wednesday 18th January 2017 and was received on Thursday 19th January 2017.

The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.

Looks like you cover the bases there. You could add in the bit about IPC firms not offering an appeal that would have been allowed anyway and that Gladstones are run by the same people as the IPC and IAS ('appeals') - you should find that if you search the forum for 'controlling minds Hurley'.

Also add in the usual stuff objecting to the added costs - again normally in most Gladstones defences. Here's one being worked on:

2.
The Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant!!!8217;s trade body, the IPC. My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.

2.
The Defendant admits he is the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the parking charge being issued however denies any knowing of who was driving the vehicle.

3.
If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that some of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.

4.a)
The Claimant will argue a notice to keeper was issued to the registered keeper complying with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 8(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given. The Defendant will argue that this is only one of many conditions that the Notice to Keeper must oblige to.

4.b)
Where a notice had been provided it failed to meet the other required demands as specified in the Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. By having these omissions the Notice to Keeper is not compliant and therefore no claim can be brought forward to the registered keeper. It failed to comply with:

"8
(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must!!!8212;
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper!!!8212;
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given!!!8212;

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

5).
It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Despite requesting, under the Ministry of Justice Part 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS Rule 31:14, for all documents relating to this case including copies of signs in place at the time of the parking charge notice as well as evidence of any contractual agreemets in place with the landowner the Claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Parking and Property Management. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

6).
If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

7).
The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court!!!8217;s decision is Parking Eye v. Beavis is applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose conditions in a <non retail> where there is no turnover of visitors and the defendant!!!8217;s vehicle was not in pay-and-display car parking.

At no point did the Defendant enter into any contract with the third party.

8).
The Claimant did not display clear signs within the site that were capable of being read and/or form a contract.
a) There is no prominent signage at the entrance of the parking area. These are too high up and difficult to read.
b) Signage is not lit.
c) Other signs are raised high up with small text which is difficult to read. In some cases some of the signs are damaged beyond reading.
d) The amount of charge is non prominent in the wording on the signage.

The signage did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver and the notices do not provide the 'adequate notice' of the parking charge which is mandatory under Schedule 4 of the POFA.

9).
The charge stated on the (virtually unreadable) signs is £100. The claimant is claiming additional £50.00 "indemnity costs" with no explanation of what those costs are, how (if at all) they have been incurred, and why the defendant should be liable for them. It is suggested that this is nothing but a means of artificially inflating the value of the claim in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Glastones to the Solicitors!!!8217; Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct. Also due to reasons sated above, as no contract was formed, I cannot be subject to any fictional damages or loss incurred.

10.a)
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states !!!8220;parking charges!!!8221; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore despite the Defendant requesting for this information, under the Ministry of Justice Part 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS Rule 31:14, no information has yet been provided to establish a defence even though the Claimant had 7 days from the letter sent on Wednesday 18th January 2017 and was received on Thursday 19th January 2017.

10.b)
The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

On the basis of the above the defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.

Looks good - you could make #2 become 2(a) and add a point 2(b) to explain why no appeal was made, because the IAS is widely accepted to be weighted in favour of parking operators, hopeless for consumers who are expected to bear the burden of proof (even of information not within their knowledge) and are left with no options but to pay or be sued, regardless of contract, liability or basis for a claim in law.

Have you made any headway in contacting the landowner, as previously mentioned?

“

You said you contacted the landowner, can you get a letter from them stating that they as principal have contracted the parking out to their agents: parking and property management limited, and they as principal do not support their agents taking this matter through the court system and wasting/using valuable court time

”

From the Plain Language Commission:

"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"

To update you. I have received and sent of my DQ.
What is the time frame to expect a court hearing / WS?

”

Maybe a month or more before you see it actually allocated & passed to the local court and then you will get an Order telling you the date of the hearing (maybe six - ten weeks on from that) and the date by which you need to file your WS and evidence.

“

I believe I may have also received a letter before claim for the other PCN's I have. If this is to proceed (I expect it will) am I able to use the same defence?

”

Pretty much, if the details are the same (location, everything?). Gladstones defences can be pretty generic and similar because their roboclaims are so similar.

“

Also if in court and ruling is made in favour. Am I able to strike out all other potential claims from the outstanding PCN's?

”

You can write to the local Court (once the case is allocated there) and ask for any other claims to be stayed pending this result because they deal with essentially the same matter and to keep 'rinsing and repeating' claim after claim, instead of filing one about all the 'charges' is an abuse of the court!!!8217;s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.

This would undoubtedly waste the court's time and cause detriment to an unrepresented defendant, who would otherwise have to keep appearing in court repeatedly, on the whim of a notorious ex-clamper parking firm and their robo-claim solicitors. Gladstones' conflict of interests in wanting to see appeals fail so that cases can proceed to court and intimidate consumers, regardless of the merits of a case, means they do not come to court with clean hands and separate 'drip by drip' torture by claims, shows a disregard for the overriding objective and the registered keeper victim of this harassment.

Excellent. Thank you for the detailed and quick response.
I have looked at the newby thread regarding WS and where to look. I gather the WS is a carry on from my defence but explained in more details and also includes any evidence i.e. photos, legal docs ect...? I will look into this further as time moves on.

Thank you for your other points made. I will ensure to do this when the time comes. I haven't had a change to look at the LBC yet but will do when home to see what this is saying. As per the Newbie thread is it worth me sending a reply as explained?

On an unrelated note I have received a PCN from a seperate company of which I have challenged and obtained a POPLA code. I have done some search for POPLA appeals. Should I start a new thread to discuss this? or is there a template to use that I can send to win the appeal.

if the LBC is genuine , its usually best to reply and refute all claims , ask for evidence etc , so check any recent LBC rebuttals over the last 12 months and use those , nothing older though , keep copies and keep free proof of posting certificates from the P O counter (not recorded)

as for the latter, yes start a new thread if you need new unrelated advice

post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread has popla templates to follow, plus find and adapt any recent similar popla defence that was approved in the last 6 months or so on here

Last edited by Redx; 23-02-2017 at 7:16 PM.

Newbies !!
Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se

How would I know whether it is genuine or not? They have listed 6 PCNs on the LBC. Charges increased from £100 to £160 per PCN making a total of over £900. I will reply to this and slow down the process as much as I can for these but my defence will be the same regardless.

In regards to the other LBC received. I replied to this within the 14 days given. I later received a reply from them responding to my points raised. At the bottom of this response which was dated March 8th it stated I had a further 14 days to response before further proceedings would take place. On the 15th March I received the Claim Form for the amounts they have mentioned in their LBC. It is clear from this that they have proceeded this despite my challenge back to them.

Where do I stand with this?

I am going to take advice from above and contact the Court that has been allocated to ensure any other claims are Stayed pending this result but didn't know as they have processed this claim despite offering 14 days where this stood?

It can be included as a point in your defence, to show the Judge what unreasonable gits he has before him (or her) acting as if they are the 'innocent party' (claimant). In private parking cases, the innocent party is the defendant, I am sure the regulars here would say.

This is a rogue, bottom-feeding industry out of control, like the clampers were.

I have just received the allocation for my case and the date when it will go ahead. I haven't had a chance to read through the letter properly yet but is this the witness statement part I need to do?
Feel I will need help with this as not sure what goes in this. I have looked on this site and probably could do some more but if anyone has any links to share or suggestions I would be greatful.

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.